And because America does not have the law also does not make it right.

Such a law would violate our Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Speech. Before such a law could be enacted in America, the First Amendment would have to be repealed.

Quote:

America doesn't have such laws? Google Colorado criminal libel and you shall see that itis punishable by up to $100,000 or 2 years in prison ... definitely more than a 'tort'. Better yet, google 'criminal libel punishable U.S.' Not punishable in the U.S.; I don't think so.

Interesting. Well, the law may vary from state to state, but most of the big libel trials have been civil cases. Even if there may be obscure laws on the books in some states, I have never heard of anyone actually going to jail for libel.

Also, it should be noted that libel is against individuals who would have to demonstrate that they have been harmed as a result of the alleged libel. "Holocaust" denial does not break that barrier, since no one is harmed by it.

Quote:

As far as those living here not having a choice to accept as fact the holocaust, because they live under tyranny? That you feel we live under tyranny is your right to believe, but, trust me, no one here would feel they live under tyranny. And isn't that what counts, as far as we are concerned?

I suppose so. When I visited the USSR in the 1980s, some of them thought they were living in a free country - a democracy, with a constitution and a federal system similar to that of the USA. On paper, that was absolutely true.

Quote:

Holland is one of the most liberal countries in the world. Tyranny, only because you don't agree with our laws? Well, I defend your right to believe that, but that's where it ends.

If people are not guaranteed Freedom of Speech in your country, as we are in the United States, then they are not free. They may think they're free, just as the Soviets thought they were free, but just because they think they're free doesn't mean they are.

Quote:

You, for example, find the death penalty perfectly appropriate for those who kill others. Even though I am strongly against it, as well as all 25 countries in the European Union, I believe in a country's sovereignity. Just keep it over there, please.

It's not as if Americans have anything to say about the laws you have in Europe, so if the people of Holland or other nations of Europe wish to impose the death penalty for murder, then so be it. Americans believe in punishing actions, not words. In contrast, Europeans ostensibly believe in punishing words, not actions.

Quote:

As for evidence of the holocaust, I will repeat it again. We know it happened. We have all the evidence we need. If it's not enough for you, I am sorry. The law will not change.

I don't care if the law changes or not, but the fact that such a law even exists is proof that those who believe in the "Holocaust" know they have weak arguments which can't stand up to public scrutiny. That's the only reason for making it illegal.

Quote:

And as far as the question of health care, I do not really get your point.
You say that it is not what Americans (the voters) want. Personally, I wouldn't know what that felt like, a parlement voted in by the majority of votes who, despite our wishes, does something we don't want, especially something as critical as health care. No, I think I'm happy with the system we have.

That's why we have a constitution in this country. It's to limit the power of government, but the government cavalierly ignores the Constitution, just like Stalin did. In previous eras in history, it fell to the Fourth Estate (the media) to keep the public informed, but now they are working in concert with the government. Indeed, the media have displaced the government as the true authority in this nation, since they control what information the voters will receive. In the same way, they can control public opinion and thus, the electoral process.

It's true that a large part of the problem is due to the stupidity of the general public for mindlessly believing what the media tell them.

Quote:

And as for the media being a major evil in your society. Trust me, I'm not being rude (I don't even know you) but I think that's terrible and I am disappointed that it is something you have to face.

The point is, as long as media continue to lie and misinform the public, then democracy is not legitimate.

So, if people can be punished for things like libel or denying the "Holocaust," then any public figure (including anyone in the media) should be punished whenever they lie to the people. Their lies are far more harmful to the nation than libel or denying the "Holocaust." It's even worse than perjury. Politicians often think they have an "out" when they say that they didn't lie under oath (such as Clinton), but did they lie at all? It doesn't matter if they're under oath or in a court of law. A lie is a lie is a lie, and it should be punished under all circumstances.

As for evidence of the holocaust, I will repeat it again. We know it happened. We have all the evidence we need. If it's not enough for you, I am sorry. The law will not change.

You have the evidence you need, eh? Well how about sharing that evidence with us?

Quote:

And as far as the question of health care, I do not really get your point. You say that it is not what Americans (the voters) want. Personally, I wouldn't know what that felt like, a parlement voted in by the majority of votes who, despite our wishes, does something we don't want, especially something as critical as health care. No, I think I'm happy with the system we have.

What the hell does health care have to do with anything? You just randomly morphed into the stereotypical self-righteous European liberal a few posts back.

Quote:

I am not a doctor or know anything about forensics. What I do know is that I have a belief that the holocaust happened. You are not going to convince that it did not happen anymore than I am going to convince you that it did. End discussion.

A belief, eh? Like a belief in God, I suppose...something that exists without any real proof(beyond non-credible "eyewitness" testimony), and in spite of contradictory evidence.

You may have to read what I read once more. I never wrote that laws were enacted to prevent research. I wrote, "to deny publicly the existence of the Holocaust is punishable in Holland", and several other countries. There's a difference there. If you want, you may Google this. I also wrote that the law which is enacted was put into effect by the majority of voters in Holland, the majority of which are non-Jewish. Still, you conclude that based on this, you pity me because of the inability to think for myself. I do not understand what you mean.

By bringing up healthcare, I was only trying to illustrate that here, we have much more control over how our government spends the country's resources and are able to influence what the government here does more than Americans can with their government. Therefore, if the government has decided to enact the law denial of the holocaust, it is there because it is what the people wanted (parlementary democracy).

By bringing up healthcare, I was only trying to illustrate that here, we have much more control over how our government spends the country's resources and are able to influence what the government here does more than Americans can with their government. Therefore, if the government has decided to enact the law denial of the holocaust, it is there because it is what the people wanted (parlementary democracy).

If that is indeed true then the people are far too easily swayed.

People: "Why should we believe this?"
Government: "Because we said so."
People: "Alright. It must be true then because you know best and would never mislead us."

We have a freedom of speech law in our constitution which states that no one needs permission to print their thoughts or feelings in public, with the exception an individual's responsibility before the law. The law in this case referring, among other things, the denial of the holocaust in public. I suppose the other countries I mentioned with have the same wording. I am not suggesting that America should change its laws. Those laws work for America, good on them. Our laws work for us.

As for anyone actually going to jail for libel, I did not say that. What I did say was that the law, whether applied or not, exists. That was my point.

Who are you to determine whether a public demonstration regarding the denial of the holocaust, in Amsterdam of all places, would not hurt anyone. Have you ever been to Amsterdam? Do you know the history of the city. There are lots survivors around here. No, I disagree, I think it might hurt them. Besides, as your constitution strats with the words "We the People". Well, our people have spoken. Despite how you may feel about it. It all boils down to our sovereignity. What the people of America want to do witih their laws and their country I leave to them.

Would you compare Holland with the old Soviet Union? Well, you may draw that comparison. That is your right.

Why would you think people in Holland were not guaranteed free speech? Because they do not deny the holocaust? But they, as far as I know, are busy with other things than denying the holocaust.

Punishing words not actions? I can assure you that actions are punished here quite swiftly.

The existence of the law is proof of the collective trauma which was experienced during world war II. The mainland of America has never experienced such a thing. How would you be in a position to talk about weak arguments. Once more, have you any idea of the history of Holland with regard to the world war II?

Don't forget, your government has been screening calls of its citizens, unknown to them, for some time looking for terrorists. Your government has Guantamano Bay which, strictly speaking breaks all international laws for due process. I put that down to the trauma the U.S. experienced after September 11th.

It's true, whites didn't enslave people, the Africans enslaved their 'brothers' and sold them to us. So actually blacks should blame their own for slavery, Europeans were only stupid enough to buy them so the blacks can now destroy OUR civilizations.

Very well said - I wish there was never such a thing as slavery! Then maybe we wouldn't be hearing this crap constantly! I am so sick of hearing black people claim that we as white people and the American Government owe the black citizens of this country for slavery that happened that many years ago. They cannot continue to carry on with this nonsense and blame there shortcomings on slavery.. White men, women and all races are equal in this country as long as they are citizens. Technically black people have it easier due to all their whining and complaining. EX. A black and a white student are applying for financial aid. The black student has 3-4 kids and the white student who can't afford school works and makes just enough to get by. The black student will qualify 1st for the grant due to their race and lack of money. Now why should my perfectly capable, hardworking, tax paying white friend miss out on school becasue an african american with 3 or 4 kids can't support themselves and wants a free ride - What is wrong with this picture..??? And they call that civil rights??? Democrats suck!!!

Why would you think people in Holland were not guaranteed free speech? Because they do not deny the holocaust? But they, as far as I know, are busy with other things than denying the holocaust.

If they are not allowed to publicly question the holocaust then no, they are not guaranteed free speech. Holocaust questioning is nothing mroe than researching an historical event. It is not hate speech, so in essence it harms nobody other than those trying to profit from the lies.

Quote:

The existence of the law is proof of the collective trauma which was experienced during world war II. The mainland of America has never experienced such a thing. How would you be in a position to talk about weak arguments. Once more, have you any idea of the history of Holland with regard to the world war II?

Really? What about the internment camps for the Germans and Japanese Americans? And, some Italian Americans if I am not mistaken? Apparently their incarceration based solely on race was alright.

We have a freedom of speech law in our constitution which states that no one needs permission to print their thoughts or feelings in public, with the exception an individual's responsibility before the law. The law in this case referring, among other things, the denial of the holocaust in public. I suppose the other countries I mentioned with have the same wording. I am not suggesting that America should change its laws. Those laws work for America, good on them. Our laws work for us.

Well, that's fine for you, but don't call it "Freedom of Speech," because it's not.

Quote:

As for anyone actually going to jail for libel, I did not say that. What I did say was that the law, whether applied or not, exists. That was my point.

Who are you to determine whether a public demonstration regarding the denial of the holocaust, in Amsterdam of all places, would not hurt anyone. Have you ever been to Amsterdam? Do you know the history of the city. There are lots survivors around here. No, I disagree, I think it might hurt them.

How would it hurt someone?

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we're not talking about a public demonstration or getting in anyone's face about it. What if someone wrote a book or pamphlet denying the "Holocaust" and mailed it only to interested parties in Holland? Or what about this website? If I go to Holland, is there a chance I might be arrested for "Holocaust denial," even though I didn't actually violate their law on Dutch soil?

Quote:

Besides, as your constitution strats with the words "We the People". Well, our people have spoken. Despite how you may feel about it. It all boils down to our sovereignity. What the people of America want to do witih their laws and their country I leave to them.

So, are you prepared to live by this philosophy in all contingencies?

Our Constitution is the law of the land. The First Amendment can not be revoked, except with the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a very time-consuming and arduous process designed to prevent laws being changed on whimsy or due to a public fad. Even laws passed by popular mandate may be struck down as unconstitutional, even if ALL the voters approve of it.

Quote:

Would you compare Holland with the old Soviet Union?

In the sense that both nations have no free speech. I know that there are many differences, but there are marked similarities as well.

Quote:

Why would you think people in Holland were not guaranteed free speech? Because they do not deny the holocaust? But they, as far as I know, are busy with other things than denying the holocaust.

It's the principle of the thing. Think of the precedent you're setting.

Why is it illegal to deny the "Holocaust"? Because, according to you, it would hurt some people's feelings.

So, by that logic, anything that might potentially hurt someone's feelings should be banned from public discourse.

What about pornography? There are those who believe that pornography causes harm as well, so shouldn't that be banned, too? This would even include classical nude paintings. After all, we don't want to leave anything to chance. Anything that anyone might complain about as "offensive" would have to be removed.

There are plenty of movies and TV shows which someone, somewhere, will find offensive, so those should be banned as well, right? What about rap lyrics? Some of those are just awful. Shouldn't they be banned?

Hey, have they banned Huckleberry Finn over there yet? After all, it has the <gasp> "N-word" in it. It should be burned, shouldn't it?

So, if you think that "Holocaust denial" should be banned, then I'll give you a whole laundry list of things which I think should be banned under the same precedent you're setting right now.

Quote:

Punishing words not actions? I can assure you that actions are punished here quite swiftly.

But you don't have the death penalty. You said it yourself.

Quote:

The existence of the law is proof of the collective trauma which was experienced during world war II. The mainland of America has never experienced such a thing. How would you be in a position to talk about weak arguments. Once more, have you any idea of the history of Holland with regard to the world war II?

True, America didn't go through the same trauma of WW2 as Europe did, but that shouldn't make any difference in this discussion. The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie. The truth can stand on its own, and thus, does not need the law to protect it from public scrutiny. Only a lie would need to be protected from public scrutiny.

Tell me this: Does prohibiting "Holocaust denial" change history? Does it change what happened in Europe during those years?

And yes, I'm rather well-versed on the history of WW2. As I just mentioned in another thread, my uncle (who is of Dutch heritage, as am I, btw) fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was decorated. So my family and my countrymen helped to liberate your country, so you should show a little more respect under the circumstances.

Quote:

Don't forget, your government has been screening calls of its citizens, unknown to them, for some time looking for terrorists.

They've been doing that for decades now. This is nothing new. It's what the government did all through the Cold War.

Quote:

Your government has Guantamano Bay which, strictly speaking breaks all international laws for due process. I put that down to the trauma the U.S. experienced after September 11th.

Yes, but it also breaks US law as well. This is not going unnoticed, and there are many Americans troubled by the lack of due process in the cases of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. It's not so much due to "trauma." The best way to overcome the trauma of 9/11 would be to put these people on trial - make it a big showcase of "justice being served." But the only reason for holding them at this point is because the US is in a state of war at present; the government is given a great deal of latitude in its authority when the justification is war.

So, is the Netherlands still at war with Nazi Germany? If so, then I could understand prohibiting "Holocaust denial," but since it's been over for over 60 years now, isn't it time to let the dead rest?

You suggest that I should show some respect. For who or what? Have I been disrespectful?

You say we have don't have free speech, I say we do? I am not here to convince you that we do, nor on why we have the laws we do. By your example, and also by your implication, America is the land of freedom and free speech. I am glad for you. I would like to know, considering your government has more freedom than mine, what it has gotten you, in tangible forms. Does everyone you know have healthcare, was it your family that got the bush tax cuts which the poverty level in America is so high. And

You suggest that you feel sorry for us Hollanders, as well as other countries who have made denial of the holocaust punishable under the law, because they're freedoms are being denied. It has never crossed my mind that my free speech was curtailed; nor have I ever heard from anyone here that complained that their free speech was being hampered. But, you insist it's true because in your country you have freedome of speech... and I insist we're right about the law we have put into afffect.

Imagine a law in which painting your house purple was a crime and punishable. I don't like purple so what do I care if it's punishable to paint that color. I know it is difficult to swallow, but the same applies to the question of the holocaust which, you insist, our freedom of speech is being violated. I know of no one dying to run out and deny the holocaust. Besideds, even if there was, if I had to choose the way this country is run compared to most other countries in the world, I would not hesitate to stay the course we are on.

Would I, as a Dutchmen, give up our social system in exchange for the freedom (as you call it) to publicly deny the holocaust? What do you think might be most important to me, to the people of Holland who, incidentlally, voted the law in effect? Would we give up the right that all people have healthcare, an education and a reasonably fair exchange of government services, or the right to deny the holocaust? I know this freedom to deny the holocaust is important to you, but accept the fact that it is not important to us. Neither is the death penalty. Accept that we do not want to live that way. Is that possible? And if not, luckily, it has no affect in the way we do things here, despite the warnings of 'what's coming' .

You prefer, I think, a place to live for only white people and I hope you get it. I think also that you will never change your mind about race mixing, blah, blah, blah. And that's good, because I am sure I could never change your mind to live the way you do(philosophically speaking). Acept then, if possible, that we will not change our mind. You go your way and deny the holocaust all you want. Us, we're going in the other direction.